Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

I live in Memphis Tennessee. It's sometimes called The river-city, sometimes The bluff-city. It's the undisputed home of the Blues, and also the home of Elvis Presley. It was the site of the largest inland naval battle in U.S. History and afterwards a major Union headquarters during the Civil War, and many years later it was the infamous site of the Martin Luther King assassination. We've got Beale street and probably the best Bar-B-Que in the world. We've got one other claim to fame. Memphis is the 2nd most dangerous city in the nation.

There's something going on here in Memphis Tennessee that is kind of like a microcosm of what is happening all around the entire nation. The Memphis City School board voted to surrender their charter. This decision was controversial. They took this decision to the people of Memphis and asked yes or no. The people of Memphis said yes, surrender the charter, better the devil we don't know than the shameful broken debacle that our kids currently suffer through.

47,812 voted yes for the surrender, while 23,612 voted no. Officials at the Shelby County Election Commission said 17 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot, a low turnout considering the heated discussion surrounding the schools merger issue.

The same problems we face here, are faced to some degree everywhere. People seldom agree on the causes of the problems and will variously point to lack of funding, or racism, poverty, crime, ignorance, and even ironically the inability to agree on anything. The problems seem manifold, overwhelming, as countless as stars in the sky, but if I could pick out just one problem and point to it and say fix this problem and the rest of it will fall into place, that one problem is fear.

The decision to abandon the Memphis City School Charter was reached because in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal state and local money pumped into these failed schools we have continued to be ranked in the bottom of all schools nationwide. As a result, good parents upon discovering where their child will go to kindergarten and lacking the money for private schooling, promptly decide to move. Memphis City schools mirror the dangerousness of the city itself. 2nd most dangerous city to live in, 2nd most dangerous school system. I have no facts to back that up but I do know that the high-schools all have metal-detector portals, resident police forces, and canine units. Draw your own conclusions. Memphis voted to surrender their charter. I think that sums it up.

If the people of Memphis thought that surrendering our charter would somehow solve our problems, well they were sadly mistaken. In fact I would say that in contrast, it only magnified the unspoken—thou shalt not mention—problems that we face around the country today. A motley crowd of morons and ignoramuses—many of whom can't make a single decision without viewing it through the bitter lens of aggrievement politics—have somehow cake-walked their way through our halls of higher learning and now they are in charge, and every decision they make is a misguided one.

Unfortunately, every time a man wants to speak up and say what he really thinks, he has to stop and think. Well I can't say it this way or they'll think I'm a racist, and I can't say it that way because they'll call it a dog-whistle—whatever that means. I'll get fired whatever I say so I guess I'll just shut up.

There are facts I need to tell our elected officials; these are things that they need to be told. These are the problems we face, but I can't mention them because, for one thing I'm a nobody with no power and no influence, and for another even if I did have any power or influence I'd instantly lose that power upon daring to speak these unmentionable facts.

Well, I'll doubtless make some people very angry with what I'm writing today. You want the truth? You can look at the worst cities with the worst records in education, the highest crime rates, and poverty rates, and poor outcomes and they all have one thing in common. It's the elephant in the room that we just don't want to talk about, what we feel like we aren't allowed to talk about; face it we're all so very afraid to talk about this.

So, instead of dealing with the underlying problems we just sit there making excuses. Oh no no no, these standardized tests are just too hard. They're not designed to showcase such valuable interpersonal skills and strengths as teamwork, leadership, charisma, sense of humor, athletic ability, or even artistic ability. They don't measure ability to handle responsibility, and on and on, ad infinitum.

If that's the road we're taking, the road of excuses and low-expectations down to failure town, then why don't we just come out and admit it? The no-child-left-behind act has failed. If the intent was to make sure every student achieves a minimum level of proficiency in math and English, then I guess it's time to lower our expectations yet one more time. Lower the bar ladies and gentlemen, teachers, school administrators, parents, society. You refuse to admit that some students just can't, and worse you refuse to believe that so many of your kids simply won't. These kids refuse to try because either it's too hard or it's too boring. What other excuses will you offer that I will never accept?

At some point the child leaves schooling behind. The main life lesson that too many of them learned is that it doesn't matter whether they learned anything, all that matters is that they passed. They spent their school years looking left and right instead of straight ahead. The teacher kept curving the grade because nobody did well, so she thought her test must be too hard. Maybe they asked for extra credit assignments? Play-Doh sculptures? What other silly tricks did they perform for the misguided passing grade?

They carried this concept with them to their first job. The result is the terrible feeling of dissatisfaction felt by their employers and felt by every customer that they interact with every day. They're still looking left and right instead of straight ahead. They're making sure they don't work any faster than anybody else, racing to see who can finish dead last—with a public sector retirement package society can't afford.

How do you graduate from High school and not know about subject verb agreement, possessive case, yes sir, no ma'am, please, and thank-you. Does anyone honestly think the same stupid excuses you gave your teacher will work with your boss?

But it's worse than that. It's in fact as bad as it can possibly get, because we've got college graduates who can't spell either. They can't conjugate the verb "to be." In fact they don't know what conjugation even means. We've got plenty of so-called Ph.Ds with the same problem. They were passed on and passed on and the only thing they ever learned was how to work the system, and now they're got the absolute worst job they could possibly have—they're the ones in charge of teaching our kids.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

I want to move away from the term "racism" because it carries too much emotional baggage. When you start using that word, everyone's blood pressure starts rising. Most people would agree that xenophobia and racism are closely related. They're fairly strong synonyms of each other. Xenophobia is the fear or distrust of those different from us either racially or culturally. A white American who is xenophobic might distrust blacks, Hispanics, or even a white guy who happens to be from Russia. It's a broader term that encompasses a larger cross-section of bias. For the purposes of this discussion, please consider the two terms—racism and xenophobia—interchangeable.

If you ask a white person whether the unprecedented unanimous black vote for Obama is racism or being pro-black the average white person will say it's racism and the average black person will say it's being pro-black. Please take note of the fact that the term [pro-white] doesn't really exist. If you do a Google search for "pro-white" all you're going to find is toothpaste, graphics software, and sneakers. Therefore it's meaningless to ask black people if whites voting for Romney are racist or pro-white. A better way of framing this question is to ask if it's the case that whites voting for Romney are xenophobic or perhaps ethnocentric. By ethnocentric I mean possessing some degree of bias favoring those who are of the same race or perhaps of the same cultural upbringing. I.E. the opposite of xenophobic. I realize many will criticize my usage of ethnocentric in this way, but honestly I couldn't think of nor find a more appropriate word. I'm certainly open to alternative suggestions.

I'm asking the question: is there really any difference between being xenophobic and being ethnocentric—i.e. being a racist and being pro-black? Unfortunately I must conclude that I am unable to separate myself from the question and answer it from a completely unbiased perspective. Furthermore I must also conclude that very few people—perhaps nobody—could answer that question from a perfectly unbiased perspective. We are all either xenophobic—or perhaps ethnocentric depending on your perspective—to a varying degree. I'm just slightly xenophobic, although it's my own opinion that I am not unduly so. It's my impression that whites in general are not unduly xenophobic, while in absolute contrast, blacks are very strongly ethnocentric. Here's my evidence:

Black support [of Romney] is at 0%, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (PDF) reported in late summer. The reasons for this may have powerful implications for the future of black political strength in presidential elections.

It's worth recognizing that the unwillingness of black voters to offer any measurable support for the Republican presidential candidate is unprecedented. It's not enough to say that blacks are voting for President Obama because he's black and that racial solidarity trumps politics. Or to note that black voters are overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Sen. John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin ran against a considerably more charismatic and untarnished Obama -- who was still black in 2008. McCain received 4% of the black vote. Black voters offered measurable levels of support to George W. Bush, 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004; Ronald Reagan, 11%; and even Richard Nixon, 18%.

Indeed, what this study proves is that while blacks vote in far greater numbers for Democrats in general—they voted for Obama overwhelmingly in 2008—but even more strikingly, in 2012 they will vote for Obama unanimously and unambiguously. It just doesn't get more ethnocentric than 100%. In 2008 Obama got 95% of the black vote. It's beyond dispute that the black voting block is monolithic and votes in perfect lockstep. The fact that Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008 and now again in 2012—despite his ostensibly Republican party affiliation—is just another foot set on the left side of a balance scale that already holds every other black person in America.

WASHINGTON — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

Overall, the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, Obama could lose 5 percentage points off his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to pro-black sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti-black attitudes.

I find the language in the quotation from Huffington Post intriguing as should you. Notice that I could reframe the statement as such:

Overall, the survey found that by virtue of pro-white ethnocentrism, Obama could lose 5 percentage points to his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to racist sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to pro-white attitudes.

Finally, we have Colin Powell who everyone in America fully expected to endorse Obama. He has a variety of reasons which nobody believes has anything thing to do with his decision. Sadly, sometimes being a member of a particular group is irrelevant to the argument but this particular example is no ad-hominem fallacy. Colin Powell is black therefore he will pull the lever for Obama. It's a black thing, and they tell me I wouldn't understand. They're right.

To me, racism, pro-black, xenophobia, and ethnocentrism are all merely different words describing inherent bias due to racial identity. In case you're interested, I tracked down the AP poll cited by Huffington Post. Take particular notice of pages 18 through 24. These are the questions devoted solely to racial identity. If you're like me the thing that will strike you most is that there wasn't really a difference between the racism shown by whites and that shown by blacks.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

I should feel angry today. There's a lot of anger in me, but predominantly, what I feel is worry. Maybe worry isn't a strong enough word. Fear? What is the emotion you feel when it seems like everything you care about, your life and that of your family is about to come apart in some horrible way? You don't know when or how but you feel it deep in your bones. Uneasiness, worry, fear, and anger.

I don't see anything on Google News' front page about Benghazi today. A quick search brings me this: via Daily Beast leading to The National Post I find David Frum's article: Why Benghazi matters. It's interesting reading and it's one reason why Benghazi matters. But it's not the main reason why today I feel such overwhelming worry and anger. From Fox is this fairly detailed summation of what we've discovered about the events in Benghazi. Obviously this isn't nearly the entire story. The information we really want to know hasn't been released. It hasn't really even been asked for.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

If you haven't already learned about it, you should read the whole story. It's sickening. One more thing to mention:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help. "There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

Oh, well I guess that the answer then Leon. If you don't know what's going on then you don't do anything. There were a lot of heroes who died on 9/11—the first 9/11—who didn't know what was going on, but they rushed into the World Trade Center. They rushed in because that was their job. They weren't soldiers and they never expected to die. Not like that. But still I give them credit where credit is due. Rushing into a burning building takes bigger balls than I've got. You know what though? Can you imagine if instead of watching what we did, we had instead watched two towers on fire while a bunch of firemen and fire-engines sat at their stations?

Yes, that definitely explains my anger. If I wasn't so worried I'd be absolutely enraged by this. If I wasn't so worried about the final dissolution of this great nation I'd be furiously penning some screed and sending copies to my congressman Steve Cohen and my two Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. I wouldn't bother writing the President. He doesn't represent me. I repudiate Barack Hussein Obama. He's not my President. We have no President. We haven't had one since January of 2009. I don't know what that man is but he's no President. It isn't this failure on every level that causes my great worry—fury yes but not my worry.

For weeks the President and all his men have regaled us with the terrible story of an offensive film and a crowd of protesters who got out of hand. They always knew this wasn't true. There was never a moment when this was the story they themselves believed. But when the real facts came out, the media just yawned and moved on. It was old news; now they want to talk about tropical storm Sandy. Can it be possible that the national media is so unabashedly partisan that they would ignore this incredible news of a massive failure and then a cover-up in Benghazi because it doesn't benefit their political ideology?

If the President is marching America Forward into collectivism and statism then the media believes it's their job to usher him forward. His path must be smoothed, his way must be cleared. I think we know that's what the media is doing, but even this isn't why I'm so worried. This makes me angry. The fact is it makes me paranoid, too. What else are they hiding that we haven't found out about. What else have they covered up?

I'm worried because not enough people are speaking up. I'm worried because I still see reporters covering some story about a cat up a tree or a robbery and these reporters are interviewing bystanders who act like our entire world isn't crashing down around us. We're being lied to and no one seems to care. If I see a reporter today I'm going to ask him why he isn't talking about the Benghazi cover-up. What happened? Why didn't the military and CIA help? Why didn't our military forces do anything for four or five hours? Why did they tell us it was a protest for weeks when all along they knew it was a terrorist attack? "Monday morning quarterbacking," really Leon? Nobody has their eyes on this ball. Everyone is just walking around whistling in the dark.

Can they really keep this covered up until after the election? America is no longer the place where I grew up, but if the media succeeds in covering up a conspiracy this profound until November 7, well then I don't think America is the place where I want to grow old either.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Not content to leave Team Obama all by themselves in trying to tie Romney to Mourdock, USA TODAY runs the story—Obama team tries to tie Romney to Mourdock. Wasn't it considerate for USA TODAY to put on their website—as a part of the story mind you—Team Obama's full campaign advertisement. It doesn't say it's a paid advertisement so it's a blatant case of favoritism displayed by a shameless MSM spin source.

The Huffington Post—another MSM spin source—has the story that Team Obama is pressing Romney to fully disown Mourdock. Yes Romney, if Team Obama wants you to fully disown Mourdock, you should listen to them, after all I'm sure they've got your best interests at heart. Just do what they say and everything will be alright.

There are hundreds of these stories. I just can't seem to get away from them. Team Obama's commercial trying to tie Romney to Mourdock might have gone unnoticed in most of the country, but luckily for Team Obama, the mainstream media picked up this ball and carried it right through the goalposts. Ironically enough, if the sight of a referee running the ball is somewhat disconcerting to you, it means you probably watch a lot of football and not much politics. By the way, that makes you a "low-information voter."

Well, the big winner for me is a heart-rending story from CNN. It has everything. There's a pregnant 12-year-old hooked on heroin, and the kicker is that the father is ...the pregnant girl's own father, who hooked the girl on heroin so that he could rape her more easily. Still think this baby is what God intended Mourdock? Romney?

(CNN) - The pregnant 12-year-old girl was strung out on heroin and looked like a walking skeleton when she arrived at the hospital. The conversation that followed, said Phoenix police chaplain John South, has stuck with him ever since.

“Do you know who the father is?” South recalled asking her.

“She said, ‘Yes, it’s my biological father. He’s the one who hooked me on heroin so he could continue to rape me whenever he wanted to.’ ”

Well, I for one am satisfied. Don't twelve-year-old pregnant heroin addicts always refer to their fathers as: "biological" fathers? So there you have it. Mourdock thinks a 12-year-old heroin addict pregnant with her own father's baby is the will of God and Romney agrees. How can you possibly vote for Romney now? Apparently CNN has also joined the Obama Team and is running the ball.

There's a lot of talk this election cycle about "low-information" voters. I'll describe a "low-information" voter and you guys in the MSM tell me if I nailed it. A low-information voter is a person that plans to vote for Romney.

These voters are low-information because they've apparently ignored literally millions and millions of stories where you guys in the mainstream news have gone miles out of your way to campaign for Obama.

It's not all bad though. There are still one or two honest news sources out there. They're few and far between. You want to know what's worse than being a low-information voter? It's being a false-information voter. In every area of human endeavor—science, history, economics, trade, politics, technician on a bomb-squad—having the wrong information is more damaging than having no information at all. So for all the low-information voters out there who don't read the news because they legitimately believe that mostly it's a dark sea of misinformation, here is a tiny ray of light to guide you safely into harbor:

President Barack Obama's appearance Wednesday night on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" was a long, free, smiley-face ride through a land of pattycake questions teed up one after another to make the guest look good and mock his Republican opponent.

Will someone tell me why more people aren't concerned about entertainment shows with audiences measured in the millions being used this way for what is essentially propaganda?

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

I'm a man; so I'm not allowed to say anything about rape, abortion, or other women's issues. I'm allowed to have an opinion, but I'm not allowed to tell anyone what that opinion is. Furthermore I'm white; so I'm not allowed to say anything about slavery, segregation, racism, discrimination or other black issues. You see, I'm allowed to have an opinion, but I'm not allowed to express what that opinion actually is. That's always going to be the case with one notable exception. If there was a big "D" next to my name I would have certain very limited permissions. If I had the "D" and I stuck closely to traditional Democratic Party line aggrievement politics, then I could go ahead...very carefully. Which brings me to the controversy of the day—Richard Mourdock, who said:

I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Richard Mourdock stuck his nose out there and got it snapped off. He told people what his opinion is which makes him perhaps honest, perhaps naive, but Democrats will tell you that this makes him a Neanderthal...a crazy right-wing religious zealot who we need to corral and put back in the nuthatch before he hurts someone. He just used the "rape" word and in the same sentence used the phrase: "God intended." OMG!

This wouldn't even be news, but coincidentally Richard Mourdock was recently endorsed by Mitt Romney. So naturally this makes a great Obama campaign talking point. Mitt Romney endorsed this crazy loon who somehow escaped from his keepers at the Right-Wing Nut Hatchery, and so now Romney must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous comparison. Mitt Romney endorses crazy person therefore Mitt Romney must be crazy. What Richard Mourdock said was so out there, so insane that now the Romney campaign must distance itself from Mourdock:

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to The Associated Press. Romney aides would not say whether the [Romney endorsement ad] would be pulled and if the Republican presidential nominee would continue to support Mourdock's Senate bid.

As a white man I'm not allowed to speak about certain things, but I can certainly talk about what I believe God intends. In the beginning God gave Adam and Eve only one commandment. He said: Be fruitful and multiply:

Genesis 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Whenever conception occurs it's what God intends. This everyday miracle of life keeps this whole ball of dirt humming along. If a lady gets pregnant that's what God intended, no matter the circumstances, and I'll leave it at that. There's lot of circumstances I'm not allowed to mention, but whatever those are, conception is God's gift, not Satan's curse.

Christians believe that life is a gift from God—and by God I mean of course the Christian God described in the Holy Bible which includes both the Old and the New Testament. Either you believe The Book or you don't. If you somehow believe that sometimes life is a curse from Satan then you need to go back and reread your Holy Bible because you missed some stuff. If you don't believe in the Christian God then you just need to just shut your mouth, because you're not allowed to give us your opinions on our issues. You can have an opinion about God and Jesus and Satan but since you're not a Christian you don't have the right to tell anyone what your opinion is about our faith. And by the way...stop quoting our scripture at us. You don't understand it and in fact cannot understand it.

The only exception to this new rule I just made up is if you have a big "R" out beside your name. In that case, even if you're not a Christian you're granted limited permission to speak. Make sure you hew very closely to the Party line, because if you stick your nose out too far, we will snap it off.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

In 2008 Obama promised hope and change. He promised transparency. He promised that at last there would be racial harmony. The hungry would be fed. The sick would be cared for. The rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet would begin to heal. Yesterday he asked for four more years to get that job done, and there are a lot of people who want to let him have another shot. Today I'm going to quote some scripture:

Exodus 20 KJV

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You may not be a Christian. You may follow some other religion or perhaps no religion at all, but I ask you, is this not disturbing to you? Doesn't this mindless worship of a mundane human being disturb you? Doesn't it give you an uneasy feeling? People shouldn't abase themselves so astonishingly, so cringingly, so worshipfully to a man. He's not a god; he's not a god-king. I tell you; to me it's just sickening. [WWMD] America, What Would Moses Do upon seeing a nation of idolaters worshipping this puffed-up megalomaniac?

There is an underlying threat here that shouldn't just be pooh-poohed away and dismissed out of hand. I don't say riots will happen or they won't, but people get touchy about their gods. They get rowdy. They start shouting. They start pushing and shoving and throwing rocks, and before you know it somebody's setting something on fire.

If Obama loses it means he's not The One. But he is The One, therefore it is understood that he will win. Do you see the logic inherent in the insanity? If it seems as though Obama didn't win, then there must be a mistake. Or maybe there's been cheating. Yes that's it! There must have been cheating because Obama is The One. Therefore he won. If your mind works a certain way—because your world is a 24/7 aggrievement and resentment echo chamber—then you would certainly carry this just that one logical step further. A nation full of racist white people who hate our President—all together now... because of the color of his skin—would absolutely cheat!

Threats of rioting, chaos and death over the upcoming presidential election are racing across Facebook and Twitter, while the silence is deafening from the government and most of the national mainstream media. Thousands of posts on the social media websites call for harming presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his supporters if President Barack Obama loses the November election. InfoWars.com, Examiner.com and the Drudge Report are among the online sites reporting the story. The government's lack of public outrage over the threats shows how it selectively sanctions what people say. It’s also a potential way to use racial violence to justify martial law.

It's tempting to dismiss this out of hand. Who ever heard of starting a riot because a decision didn't go your way? This election is not about hope and change. This election is not about fairness. It's not about racial justice or reparations for slavery or somehow righting the wrongs of the past. It's not about building roads and bridges and infrastructure. It's not about whether you're better off after the past four years or not. It's not even about stopping Iran from getting nukes. It's about freedom.

Taxation is an abridgement of your freedom. How free are you today? How many minutes or even hours will you work today to pay for the roads, bridges, infrastructure, and the interest on 16 trillion dollars of debt? Add up your federal state and local taxes. Add in sales tax, excise taxes, and property taxes. You know you pay Social-Security and Medicare taxes, but most people don't realize that their employer matches that amount. (George Bush lowered the employee rate to 4.2% The employer rate is still 6.2%.) This represents an indirect tax on you, because your employer could afford to pay you a commensurately higher wage if not for that matching amount. Combined you and your employer pay 13.30% of every dollar you make to the IRS for Social Security and Medicare. That's before a single penny is deducted for federal state and local taxes. How would you like a 13.30% raise? If you're like the majority of taxpayers you spent half your day working for the state and the next half working to provide for your family. Are you free? Maybe only half free?

When you stand in front of the machine at the airport that sends x-rays through your clothing and renders an explicit nude image of your body on the TSA agent's video-screen, are you free?

In Wisconsin thousands of public sector union members converged on your state capital, and invaded the capitol building, keeping your duly elected representatives from representing you. Are you free?

Illegal immigrants are over-running the nation. It's especially bad in Arizona so they tried to curb the invasion by passing a sensible law. Arizona got sued by the Justice Department. Do you still feel free?

Various states wanted to stop the Democrats from letting dead people and illegals vote, so they tried to institute Voter ID laws and guess what? They were sued by the Justice Department! Are you free?

The ATF wanted to take away your right to own certain dangerous-looking kinds of guns. So they cooked up an outrageous scheme and "walked" thousands of assault rifles into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. These guns were to be found at the scenes of murders and traced back to the USA. The ATF conspired to have innocent people murdered in order to strengthen gun-control laws. Omelet and breaking eggs anyone? First they denied doing it. Then they refused to admit who authorized it. We sued the Justice Department...the ineffable irony here defies any words to describe it. We sued the Justice Department and the President said: No, you can't sue. I claim Executive Privilege.

When people across the country threaten to riot and burn down your city if Obama loses, what they're saying is you are not free. They own you. When they chant "Obama" in worshipful awe as though he is some kind of god, they're not free either. They've renounced their freedom for the promise of more of your money, more of your working day, working for them. Your half-day of slavery isn't enough. It's not enough; they want the whole thing. And if they succeed, if they manage to win the election and keep the god-king on his throne for four more years, they may get what they want. How do those chains feel?

If Obama doesn't win, thousands of people have threatened to riot, thus causing martial law, thus allowing Obama complete and overwhelming control over every facet of our society. It would be more control than even he's ever imagined. Can you imagine President Obama the loser of the election, our new god-king ruling over a land under martial law?

It's impossible right? Something like that can't happen here. We're different from the thousands of other places and times where the same thing happened before. This is America the land of the brave and the home of the free...but...are you free?

Monday, October 22, 2012

The right has rightly noticed that our President not only wants plenty of free-time, he absolutely demands it! The Obama family had gone on 16 vacations as of February of this year, and that doesn't even count all the trips to Camp David. In addition, he's played 104 rounds of golf!

No president has been more vilified for his love of golf than Obama. And perhaps not surprisingly, no president has done more to keep his game a secret. During the 104 rounds Obama has played as president, photographers have been permitted only five times, according to White House pool reports.

I would argue however, that we should absolutely stop vilifying our President for his vacations and golf outings. It's high time we encourage him to take all the time off he wants. I realize that all these vacations have cost the nation billions of dollars, but consider how much we'd have paid if he hadn't taken all that time off. A few billion is a bargain!

Every decision Obama has made in the last four years has cost us plenty. Whether it's his war on energy, his czars and agencies, hyper-regulation of American businesses, hypocritical race demagoguery and class warfare, unimaginably reckless spending, or his foreign policy—which has outclassed even that of Jimmy Carter in damaging American interests around the world—no President in history has done more to destroy America than Barack Hussein Obama.

When you consider all the foregoing, shouldn't we be incredibly grateful that our President only works part time? Imagine, if you can, where we would be today if the President was a workaholic and put in sixty or seventy hours a week. He's already added five and a half trillion to the national debt, just think what he could have done if he'd really tried?

Obama's lack of character is a blessing in disguise. His campaign until now was an unstoppable juggernaut. It was an overwhelming surge that was as inevitable as the tides. The advantages Obama held were nearly insurmountable. He had an adoring mainstream press, an unpaid army of union workers and members of protected classes. He had Air-Force-One, White House staff, the Bully Pulpit, and let’s not forget all the ringing endorsements from a coterie of Hollywood personalities, Communist Party USA, even from the Ayatollah Khamenei himself:

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

All that intrinsic Presidential advantage was completely negated that fateful Wednesday evening in Denver. It was forfeited by a President who really likes his free time, who intransigently demands his free time:

When President Barack Obama stepped off the stage in Denver last week the 60 million Americans watching the debate against Mitt Romney already knew it had been a disaster for him. But what nobody knew, until now, was that Obama believed he had actually won. In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.

During his debate preparation in Henderson, Nevada, Obama broke off to visit a campaign field office. There, he joked with a volunteer about how his advisers were 'keeping me indoors all the time' to practice. 'It's a drag. They're making me do my homework.'

Obama also decided to take a break to visit the Hoover Dam. "Its spectacular, and I've never seen it before," he told reporters during the visit, which came about because an aide had mentioned the dam was nearby. I said, 'Well, we've got to go check it out'."

Where are we today after four years of Obama? It's almost impossible to successfully start a new business in America today. My grandfather could have done it with ease. My father would have faced a tougher road but with perseverance he probably could have done it. Today if I had the money to start a business, I wouldn't even try. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point they've made trying to open a new business an insane catch-22 ordeal.

There are so many regulations with their associated agencies: OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, EPA, ICC, CPSC, FTC, FDA, and SEC to name a few, that it's almost a virtual certainty that I'd run afoul of one or more of them, and when I did you can bet my already long-established competitors would be on the phone to one of those agencies faster than Michelle Obama can snork down a $300.00 Fancy French dinner. You might say our regulatory agencies enable unassailable monopolistic consortiums having no fear of upstart competitors who lack the required staff of lawyers and lobbyists.

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Finally, I want to show you something. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at this picture from the Denver debate. If this picture doesn't convince you that Obama is America's most dangerous enemy then eloquence more astounding than I'll ever aspire to could never budge you one scintilla either. There truly are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Please Mr. President, go put on your golf shoes and play a few rounds. Take the week off. Take two. You deserve it and frankly, we could all use a break.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

Point 1.) The government may not compel Americans to commit acts which are antithetical to their own religious beliefs.

This concept based on the First Amendment has a long history and strong legal precedent: United States v. Seeger (1965), and Welsh v. United States (1970), and Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

You may have heard that ObamaCare was 2700 pages long, and as such, none of the Democrats—by the way not one Republican voted for the ACA—who voted for the bill had read much more than an outline of what was in it. Nancy Pelosi famously stated, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

And pass it they did! Now the courts are deciding whether practicing Catholics can be compelled to pay for birth control and sterilization, which is in the Catholic view a sin and goes very much against their core religious beliefs. Most people understand by this point that far from being a guardian of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is mired in the same partisan quagmire that the rest of the country is neck deep in.

Usually we can expect the Supreme Court to rule in a narrow 5/4 split along strictly partisan lines, and those opinions the justices write—both the majority and the minority opinions—pick and choose selectively among all the related cases in the past. They pick this phrase here and that one there, much like a persnickety vegan grazing at a Chinese buffet.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate. In this decision the court decided that you can be taxed not only for what you do, but for what you don't do. This is of course a capitation tax—aka head tax or direct tax—and is therefore unconstitutional unless taken in proportion to the census or explicitly enumerated within the Constitution itself—which ObamaCare definitely is not. The individual mandate wasn't the only thing that has conservatives angry, there's also the Birth Control Mandate:

The Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine.

The Supreme court will probably broaden the birth-control coverage exemption to all employers with a conscientious religious objection. However the central objection of the Catholic church—and many others—is this: regardless of whether it is explicitly stated, if the Federal Government imposes a greater burden upon insurance companies by way of forcing them to cover the entire cost of birth-control, the insurance companies will quite necessarily pass along that additional cost to their customers, i.e. the conscientious objectors who are footing the bill for the insurance coverage. For this reason regardless of whether they admit it or not, if the birth control coverage is provided at all, the Catholic church will necessarily be paying for it. This concept is so self-evident that only a mendacious jackass would dispute it. Which brings me right along to my next point and the highly relevant example:

Point 2.) All businesses, institutions, and governments pass the cost of operation along to their clientele.

Example: Obama has famously demagogued the big oil companies who he says are being subsidized by the Federal Government for billions of dollars every year. What he means of course, is that they're depreciating their oil wells in accordance with current tax law. They have an asset—the oil well—which quite obviously has less and less oil actually left in it every year as the oil is pumped out. So the oil companies are allowed to reduce the value of this asset [the oil well] accordingly. There is no subsidy; it's a tax credit.

Now then, who ultimately foots the bill for the taxes that the big oil companies pay? Where-oh-where do those big oil companies get all that money to pay the billions and billions of dollars in taxes they hand over to Uncle Sam every year? You and me bub. Therefore, if for instance Obama successfully managed to raise taxes on big oil, who would ultimately pay for all this extra taxation? You and me bub.

Point 3.) The government subsidizes marriage.

You disagree? Whether it's widow/widower's benefits from social security, or the income-tax benefits married couples get from the IRS, or health insurance benefits or life insurance benefits or estate tax benefits—as is the case in today's news—married couples are subsidized by the state for their marriage:

Windsor v. United States is the case of Edith Windsor. She and Thea Spyer had been together 42 years when they legally married in Canada in 2007. But when Spyer died in 2009, Windsor had to pay federal estate taxes totaling $363,053 because DOMA prevents the Internal Revenue Service from recognizing Windsor as a surviving spouse. Windsor sued to get her money back.

Point 4.) The only purpose of the marriage subsidy is for making new people.

The only legitimate secular reason for the government to subsidize marriage is because it is encouraging a man and a woman to join together in a formal legal relationship for the sole purpose of bearing and raising children. New citizens replacing old citizens being in the manifest interest of the state.

Before the advent of agriculture the man hunted and the woman—with child in tow—foraged. Once we discovered farming the woman usually stayed at home and raised the children and kept the home neat and clean and in her spare time made handicrafts, clothing, blankets, curtains, even furniture. By the way I'm not a male chauvinist; this really is how it used to be. Times have changed though and because of the amazing innovation that we've achieved since the industrial revolution, male brute force is no longer such a necessity in accomplishing the required work. The state still needs those children though. We still need women to have those babies. Perhaps one day we'll be able to grow them up in some kind of plastic womb and when they're done tip them out on a conveyor belt, but that day isn't today.

Face facts, marriage is meant for making more people. Naysayers will invariably point out the infertility, artificial insemination, and adoption arguments. It has only been in the last hundred years that we've been able to discover for a fact that someone actually is infertile. But even more importantly, in that same hundred years we've also been able to discover many ways to either cure or get around that problem. So even though a man and a woman may not be able to have babies together, that's the exception not the rule and their problem could well be solved tomorrow.

Artificial insemination only works for women, so at a minimum there's no reason at all for the state to subsidize the marriage of two men. Unfortunately for lesbians, it now seems nearly certain that the age-old taboos against homosexuality are not just atavistic howling at the moon barbarism and caveman ignorance. It now seems more and more clear that being raised by homosexual parents is very damaging to the children.

By the way, this study caused a great deal of controversy because it contradicted the false narrative espoused by the liberal agenda. The huge size of the study group alone defies the snap-judgements and reflexive rushing-to-contradict by alarmed liberals. Earlier studies with different results invariably used very small non-representational study groups. This is sometimes known as cherry-picking the desired results. As you might expect, gay people reacted to this study like six-year-olds learning that there wasn't really a Santa-Claus after all.

Adoption is important but it doesn't create new people. It's nice that a couple is helping the state babysit someone else's kids but face it, net new people = zero. The number of children available for adoption is very limited and there's already plenty of heterosexual couples waiting on a baby. When you add in the poor outcome of children raised by gay couples, it really doesn't seem fair that heterosexual couples might have to compete with homosexual couples in the adoption process.

Point 5.) Forcing conscientious objectors to pay income tax and Social Security which would go towards subsidizing gay marriage is unconstitutional.

This is outlined in the cases referenced above, and is certainly the position of the Catholic church. If the Supreme court finds for the Catholics on the birth control mandate, then it must equally find the same holds true for those who refuse to fund gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA or perhaps goes further and actually "legalizes" gay marriage—like it did with abortion—then marriage itself will no longer benefit the state. At that time, when it's a net liability to the state, when the outcome for children raised by gay couples is negative, when these unions cause population decrease instead of increase, I would expect the state to strip away one-by-one all the subsidies which go hand-in-hand with marriage, and instead begin to impose sanctions in much the same way as they've already done with cigarettes. At some point I wouldn't be surprised to see a surgeon generals warning on a marriage certificate.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

America has a possibly terminal disease. A short list of America's symptoms in no particular order includes: a stagnant economy, massive debt, high crime rate, multi-generational poverty, blind hatred, willful ignorance, unhealthy lifestyles, and poor international relationships. Every American could probably agree that we are experiencing these symptoms. That would be the full extent of agreement possible. We all agree that we are experiencing these symptoms, but nobody can agree on a diagnosis. What is the cause?

In my own humble opinion, the pathogen is self-interest run amok—aka malignant self-interest. People make the decisions that they do because, almost universally, they believe that those decisions serve their own self-interest best. When an employer decides on the particular wage to pay his employee, he's weighing several factors, but never doubt that uppermost in his mind is his own self-interest. He's going to pay that employee the lowest amount that he believes the employee will accept without complaint. Complaints are no fun for an employer, and the biggest complaints of all—with unions and marching and signs and picket lines—are the least fun of all.

Unions are not fun for employers. In fact they're so terribly not at all enjoyable, you might even say that they are the exact opposite of an employer's self-interest.

Imagine: You have this great idea that you just know is one day going to make you a fortune. This concept—developing a great idea and selling that idea for lots of money—is sometimes called the American Dream. You work and save at your job for years and years. One day you finally have enough to start your own small business. You sink every dime you've got into your dream. Why did you do it? Why did you risk everything? Your safe comfortable job is now gone. Your life-savings are now gone. You've even borrowed money from the bank with your own home as collateral! If this business fails, you lose everything. You've put not only yourself but also your family in the direst jeopardy. Why on earth would you do something like this?

The worst part of all is the fear! Can you imagine it? Waking up in the morning knowing that you've got months at best, perhaps only weeks, to start making the sales you absolutely must have very soon or watch everything you have vanish without a trace. Most people would never do something like this. The vast majority of people would just keep working that safe job and saving for retirement, hoping their kids do well in school and go to college. But you weren't content to eke out a living hand-to-mouth scrimping by on Ramen noodles and beanie-weenies so that retirement and the kids' college would one day be possible. You wanted something better for yourself and for your family. Now it's make or break time! So you gulp down a Red-Bull and maybe nibble on a breakfast Hot-Pocket™ as you fight traffic to get to your brand new business and open those doors.

But when you get there what do you find? How about a bunch of the people you hired holding picket signs and marching in front of your business? Myself, I feel like I'd want to fire every last one of them. Who needs this? As an employer I understand that I need employees but I also understand that there's plenty of people looking for work and—by the way—nobody is irreplaceable. In a free country they'd all be gone—every last marcher fired on the spot! But this isn't a free country.
Let's just get one thing perfectly clear, freedom means no one can force me to agree to something that is not in my own best self-interest. If you force me to work for no compensation I'm your slave. If you take what's mine without my agreement, you're a thief and I'm your victim. If I know that you're just going to take everything I have again tomorrow, I won't bother making anything for you to take. If you force me to work and make things so that you'll have something to take, then once again, I'm your slave.

So right off the bat it looks like people who work for a living are partially slaves to the state. A portion of our wages is taken involuntarily. Are you a slave 15% of the time? Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who's a slave 28% of the time. The richest workers of all are lucky enough to be slaves 35% of the time. Of course, nobody is forcing any of us to work, so by definition none of us are slaves.

What a great system we have! 47 percent of the population pays no federal income tax. So their effective time spent as a slave is never. They don't spend a single moment of their lives in slavery to the state. But that 47 percent is not even the half of it!

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in mid-2010, according to a new report.

And when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half of the nation lived in a household that received a government check, according to the analysis of third-quarter 2010 Census data done by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian-leaning think tank. That's more than 148 million Americans.
Those numbers are on their way up thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath, which have pushed record numbers of people onto public assistance programs. In particular, the stubbornly high unemployment rate has left millions of Americans in dire straits.

In 2008, one-quarter of people lived in households receiving a government lifeline and about 45 percent a government check, according to the Census Bureau.
The nation's safety net has become fodder for the 2012 election. Republican presidential candidates have accused President Obama and his party of turning America into an entitlement nation.

The federal government sent a record $2 trillion to individuals in fiscal 2010, up nearly 75% from 10 years earlier.

Apparently 53 percent of Americans are slaves at least part of the time to the 34 percent who receive benefits from the government and pay no taxes. But let’s get back to self-interest. It's in my own self-interest to live in a nice neighborhood, have a nice house, send my kids to a good school, and have a nice comfortable next-egg for when I retire. How do I get that? I can't do it as one of the 47%. They've agreed to subsist at the poverty level in order to avoid spending a single moment in slavery. That's their choice. You don't agree?

From the moment I was born I made choices. To cry or not to cry, that was the only question back then. My choices became greater and my decisions weightier the older I grew. If I had chosen to walk down the easier path, the road more traveled, I'd have found fewer options at the end of that road. I could have spent my youth playing video games and watching television. I could have dropped out of high school. I could have spent my nights with my girlfriend and we could have together made decisions that gave us a baby. Or two babies. Or three. I could have decided that selling drugs was the best way to live the American Dream. Regardless of my circumstances today, you have to agree that I was in control the whole time. I made every decision that puts me where I sit right now. So the 47% decided day-after-day, moment-by-moment to be where they are today, whether they realized that fact or not.

So where are we today? The hardest workers are slaves to the hardly working. Employers are forced to accept agreements against their own best self-interest, not by the unions, but by the state which forbids employer retaliation against union extortion. And the most egregious example of rampant self-interest run amok can be found when the unions join together with the state in that most unholy of matrimonies, the public sector union. This is the dark heart of the cancer that is killing America. This is the part that a surgeon would say absolutely has to be cut out.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

If you didn't see the debate last night and you wonder who won, I'll tell you, it was Mitt Romney. The mainstream media outlets are going to tell you a different story. They'll tell you how the suave and masterful Obama orated like a strategic grandmaster and every word he said served the dual purpose of both defending his own record while at the same time attacking Romney's wealth and his record as a governor and a CEO. This simply isn't the case. Obama is a stuttering clusterf--k of a miserable failure, both as a president, and as a debater.

What Mitt Romney was facing was not just an uphill battle. Romney was doing one-armed pull-ups with Candy Crowley hanging on to one leg and Obama hanging on the other. Obama was given the last word on every question for the entire 90 minutes, including the final minutes of the evening when he was allowed to bring up the "47 percent" without fear of any possibility of rebuttal. This was—as I predicted—a tag-team contest with Obama and Crowley teaming up together to debate Romney. Candy's performance last night was so over-the top and self-evidently partisan—adamantly taking Obama's side every time—that it was literally breathtaking!

The first question was about the economy. Romney went first, and then Obama; then Candy asked a follow up question and allowed Romney to answer. He talked about free-enterprise and letting the market do its job by allowing bankruptcies to happen. He talked about the GM buyout and other stupid government decisions. Finally, Candy gave the last word to Obama:

OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn't true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs. And that -- don't take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they'll tell you his prescription wasn't going to work.

And Governor Romney's says he's got a five-point plan? Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That's been his philosophy in the private sector, that's been his philosophy as governor, that's been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.

CROWLEY: OK. Will -- will -- you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.
Because I want to move you on...

[Because Obama gets the last word.]

Obama had just called Romney a liar. Obama had just accused Romney of wanting to put one-million people out of work. Obama had just claimed that Romney's only plan is to help the rich get richer. He was demagoguing this debate and Candy was letting him get away with it!

The next question was energy policy. First Obama responded with his "renewable energy" approach. Romney answered back with his "all of the above" approach: unblock federal land for oil exploration, approve the Canadian pipeline, free up the Gulf Coast, the Eastern seaboard, the Alaskan coastline for offshore oil exploration, approve more nuclear power plants, more coal fired plants, natural gas exploration, as well as wind and solar.

Next Candy gave Obama more time so that he was able to attack Romney on his record regarding coal. Romney tried to respond to that but Obama continually interrupted and never let him complete more than a sentence at a time, and often not even that. Even though Romney had never been allowed to respond freely to Obama's accusations, Candy threw it back to Obama yet one more time for the final word.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?

OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting.
So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

CROWLEY: I got to -- I got to move you on --

ROMNEY: He gets the first --

CROWLEY: -- and the next question --

ROMNEY: He actually got --

CROWLEY: -- for you --

ROMNEY: He actually got the first question. So I get the last question -- last answer.

Obama claimed that the reason for low gas prices in 2008 was because of the recession and that it was the failure of Bush's policies, the same policies espoused by Romney. Romney naturally wanted to respond to that claim, but he was constantly interrupted by both Candy and Obama. There was a lengthy drawn-out filibuster from the Obama and Crowley tag-team that lasted for the next 30 seconds or so. They really, really didn't want Romney to be able to respond to these accusations.

CROWLEY: (Inaudible) in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.

And the next question is for you. So if you want to, you know, continue on -- but I don't want to leave all --

ROMNEY: Candy, Candy --

CROWLEY: -- sitting here --

ROMNEY: Candy, I don't have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that -- they're not phantom jobs. They're real jobs.

CROWLEY: OK.

ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure --

CROWLEY: OK.

ROMNEY: -- we're taking advantage of our energy resources. We'll bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 31/2 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future.

OBAMA: Candy, it's not going to --

CROWLEY: We're going to move you along --

OBAMA: Used to being interrupted.

CROWLEY: We're going to move you both along

[Because Obama gets the last word.]

This post would be way too long if I outlined every instance of how Tag Team Obama/Candy conspired to give Obama the last word on every question. You can read the full transcript here: I'm going to move you along to the final words of the debate:

OBAMA: I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.

Folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives. Veterans who've sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income.

Romney was given no chance to respond. The entire debate from beginning to end was such a ridiculously partisan charade instead of a debate that those of us on the right who watched it were one and all outraged beyond belief! I for one, am waybeyond outraged. Do they really think they can get away with this? ABC NBC CBS CNN MSNBC are all out there gloating and high-fiving each other. It's absolutely sickening. I am going to watch the next debate, but when those 90 minutes are over, I'm calling COMCAST!

I'm going to find out how I can get those channels permanently blocked. I vow! I swear! that never again, if I can help it, will the phosphors from these ridiculously biased channels impact my one glaring eye. I'll be praying for their imminent bankruptcy. My prayer is also that all the sleepers awaken and turn off the pipedreams coming from their idiot boxes. I'll pray that Americans walk outside and breathe the fresh air of freedom. I'll pray that everyone finally pulls the scales from their eyes and beholds the evil drab underbelly of the Democrat-Media complex and its goal of American socialism—and socialism by the way is nothing more than slavery of the people, by the people. Unchain your minds America, or you may find out too late that a collar has already been fastened around your neck.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The 2nd Presidential debate is tomorrow October 16, 2012, 9:00 PM, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The first debate was a huge game changer. The Obama campaign knows they can't withstand another debate like the first one. They've gotten some helpful feedback from fans in the mainstream media such as Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Sherri Shepherd, Michael Tomasky, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Hayes et al. The consensus among these aghast commentators seemed clear: President Obama should have been watching more MSNBC if he wanted to learn the best way to counter the conservative viewpoint. Chris Matthews recited a litany of mainstream class warfare tropes helpfully conjured up for Obama by the MSNBC team during this campaign cycle that Obama would have known about had he watched more MSNBC:

After the vice-presidential debate, when the Obama campaign saw how successful Joe Biden appeared to be when he used openly disdainful body-language, incessant smirking and outright laughter, along with constant interruptions during Paul Ryan's speaking time, and—as luck would have it—an overtly helpful moderator—Martha Raddatz of ABC news—they vowed that this time Obama was going to go on the attack!

“I think [Obama] is going to be aggressive in making the case for his view of where we should go as a country,” senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Axelrod argued that Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan failed during a Sept. 30 appearance on Fox, then during his debate last week to detail how Romney would pay for his $5 trillion tax plan. “So, we're going to give Governor Romney another chance on Tuesday to try and square this impossible circle,” Axelrod said.
He also said Obama plans to be more aggressive and is making “adjustments” before the debate.

This is the 3rd of a four round battle and the scorecards look to be tied at one round for Romney and one for Obama. Both combatants are now warmed up and suddenly Obama at last realizes that he's got a real fight on his hands. I expect him to come out swinging this time.

This 3rd debate—the 2nd between Obama and Romney—is what's called a town-hall format. The moderator will not be asking her own questions nor will she be asking predetermined questions; she will instead merely be relaying questions from the audience. However, recently it was discovered that the moderator—Candy Crowley—plans on taking a more active role:

—Jack Mirkinson—Huffington Post: "Carole Simpson, the last woman to moderate a debate, said on CNN that she felt "women are being marginalized" because, like her, you were selected for a debate in which you don't come up with the questions."

Candy Crowley—2nd Presidential Debate Moderator: "Carole and I are great friends. I don't know what the rules were for hers. I don't feel that way. I hope that I can add to this conversation. I hope that I can say, 'well, now that you've said that, though, doesn't that bring up this?' "

Both campaigns upon hearing about this immediately complained. Neither campaign seems happy with the idea that apparently Candy Crowley has—without either campaign's approval—decided to expand her own role in this town-hall debate. If the vice-presidential debate is anything to go by however, it seems likely that the Obama campaign complaint is merely proforma crocodile tears.

Romney is practicing his debate performance right now. I hope that he's also studying Candy Crowley. I did a little studying this morning myself. Check out this interview with Rick Santorum. Watch how Candy keeps trying to interrupt Rick. She plays him what she hopes to be a gotcha clip that proves how tough Obama is on terrorism in the Mid-East, but is in the end thoroughly schooled by a defiantly determined Santorum who refuses to be shut down. This is what we can expect tomorrow. She's an interrupter and she's evidently on Obama's side. You can't watch a video like this and not come away with that impression. Look at this:

Obama is going to interrupt repeatedly. He's going to laugh and use derisive body-language. He's going to do all the things that Biden did, and he certainly expects Candy Crowley to be in his corner. Romney had better expect the same thing. I hope Romney's been practicing his ability to talk right through attempted interruptions, because incessant interruptions are what he's going to be facing: interruption after interruption from the Obama-Candy tag team. Romney's message is the vastly better one. He must get that message out there, but Obama and Crowley will do everything that can to stop him. Romney, don't let them stop you. Just keep talking!

Saturday, October 13, 2012

I nearly had an involuntary spit-take moment this morning while reading the news. That's when you're drinking your morning coffee and you see something so improbable—in this case so asinine—that your gasp of amazement and subsequent inhalation of coffee is the cause of a lengthy and violent coughing spasm, with coffee droplets flying literally everywhere, and the sticky ruination of yet another keyboard.

Now it's Joe Biden who's the Happy Warrior? How absolutely and completely shameless the Democrats are! They're trying to steal Breitbart's sobriquet as the Happy Warrior. But that's what they do isn't it. There's nothing at all surprising in this. They took the traditional blue color that Republicans held for decades, and they left us with commie-red. Oh the irony! They also took from Republicans the legitimate mantle of emancipators and equal rights champions, and put it on like a kid wearing daddy's old suit. They look ridiculous and don't even know it.

It is the Republicans who have always championed equality, this was as true in Lincoln's time as it is today. It was the Democrats who were the party of slavery. It was the Democrats who were the party of segregation. When the Democrats realized in the 60's that the national opinion on civil rights had changed radically by 180 degrees, they didn't change their opinions on race. No they haven't changed their opinion on that. The Democrats to this day are undoubtedly the most racist people on the planet.

But now they've taken upon themselves the risible mantle of the all-knowing racial atoners for white guilt. I was born in '67. My parents taught me that the "N" word was worse than the "F" word. I never mistreated anyone or looked down on anyone because of their race. I have no white guilt. Hey Democrats—you will never ever make me feel guilty for something that you did.

When I drive through vast sections of Memphis, a city with a somewhat reprehensible record on civil rights, I am unfortunately a witness to the consequences of years and years of one-party rule by Democratic mayors—the worst of which was Mayor Willie Herenton who maintained a stranglehold on Memphis for nearly 16 years. As a direct result, today Memphis holds the dubious distinction of being the 2nd most dangerous city in the country. We were narrowly defeated for that honor by—of course—Detroit.

When you go around asking people are you better off? Under Obama's policies are you better off than you were four years ago? Why not go a little bit further. Black people, are you better off? After more than fifty years of Democratic party atonement for the injustice of slavery and then segregation, are you better off? After years of welfare and foodstamps and affirmative action, how are you doing? You don't have to answer that. I can look out of my car window and see it for myself.

Now to rub a little salt into our wounds, the final injustice, they're trying to take the sobriquet of our Tea Party Patron Saint Andrew Breitbart and give it to that obnoxious overtalking boor, Joe Biden. This must not stand! Fight back! Brietbart is the Happy Warrior, not some overtalking boorish boob named Biden!

Friday, October 12, 2012

I watched the debate and it turned out much as I expected. The MSM narrative now is that Biden was offensive and Ryan defensive. If this had been a fight instead of a debate I'd have to give it to Biden. Biden was rude, overbearing, offensive, and a thoroughgoing boor. Ryan should have pushed back a little more, there's no doubt about that. Perhaps he was coached not to. Maybe they were worried that the old guy would stroke out or burst a coronary if Ryan pressed him too hard.

This wasn't supposed to be a fight though, it was supposed to be a debate. Each side was supposed to get two minutes to respond to the questions asked by the moderator. Ryan never once interrupted Biden during Biden's time, while Biden never once allowed Ryan to have his two minutes. The moderator never once admonished Biden for his incessant interruptions. Those watching on the right probably thought it unfair that the debate seemed to be almost a tag-team of Joe Biden and Martha Raddatz against Paul Ryan. I've seen something like this before by the way...at the horse races. They call it handicapping:

In a horse handicap race (sometimes called just "handicap"), each horse must carry a specified weight called the impost, assigned by the Racing secretary based on factors such as performances, distance so as to equalize the chances of the competitors. To supplement the combined weight of jockey and saddle, up to the assigned impost, lead weights are carried in saddle pads with pockets, called lead pads.

It's too bad going in that Ryan didn't have more practice at talking through interruptions. They could have used firecrackers and air-horns and maybe those clown-horn things. They could have had Ryan practice debating with Drill Instructor Ermey, or something—anything—to try and rattle him, make him learn not to hesitate when he's hitting his stride; just bull loudly through and finish his point come hell or highwater. They could have, but they didn't. For some reason they didn't train Ryan to debate an overtalker:

Overtalker: A rude person that interrupts people and speaks over them if they don't concede to being interrupted. They generally have a disregard for anything others are talking about. They are known to be loud, obnoxious, and generally inconsiderate of normal social-speaking etiquette. They do this in such a fashion that others wonder if they have ADHD, Tourette's Syndrome or some other mental disorder that makes them incapable of carrying on a conversation, instead turning it into a monologue.

After watching the whole thing, here's what I came away with. Paul Ryan's a nice guy. Joe Biden is this close { } to being completely crazy. He was clearly unhinged last night. Especially with that almost insane smile he kept the whole time like he'd gone completely 'round the bend:

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The moronic things people say when they are caught unprepared by a reporter are just amazing to me. A reporter—accompanied by his video camera toting sidekick—has the ability to evoke the most startlingly doltish statements from the average innocent bystander. It must be said that there are among us those who're completely clueless, those who've haplessly stumbled through four years of high school and sometimes even college and yet somehow they never actually learned anything at all. Here's a short list of YouTube links. As an American I'm by turn amused, appalled, and embarrassed at the evident stupidity of my fellow countrymen. Warning, this might be painful for you to watch:

This was all done in fun, but there is a serious side to this. Most people will just shrug this off and say: well sure, of course there are lots of stupid people out there, lots of uninformed clueless people who don't actually know very much about the world. How ironic it is that many of the same people saying this, are likely to themselves also be embarrassingly uninformed.

If you're an American citizen, how much do you know about our country? Could you pass the same test that an immigrant from anywhere else in the world must pass to become an American Citizen? Could you pass a US citizenship test?

Yes the test is very annoying the way you have to keep clicking "next" and waiting for page loads. CSM should definitely redesign it. Well, how'd you do? If you did well, great! Don't get cocky. If you didn't do so well, at least now you know. Do something about that.

People know a lot more about subjects that they're interested in, than they do about those they're not. If you asked me about sports or reality TV, I'd sound like somebody in one of these YouTube videos above. It's boring to me. If you asked me about celebrities and their relationships, I wouldn't have a clue because frankly I couldn't possibly care any less about celebrities and their absurd overly dramatic highly publicized rag-sheet scandal relationships. I don't think it makes me un-American to not care about baseball, nor does it make me gay or any less of a man because I'm not rooted to a couch on a Football Sunday.

When it comes to facts, I like mine mostly from history and science books and not much from sports almanacs or celebrity magazines. Most people would probably relate more to the words from the first set of lyrics below than from my own version below it.

Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology.
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the French I took.

Don't know much about Angeline Jolie,
Don't know much about Oh-pra Win-fer-ee,
Don't know much about a Tampa Bay Buc,
Don't know much about a Hell's Kitchen Cook.

The point is, that when it's you who's holding the microphone, and it's you who gets to ask the question, and just because it's you who already knows the answer doesn't mean it's you who's smarter than the guy who doesn't.

With that said, I'm still appalled at the incredible ignorance of the voting public. It just doesn't seem fair that completely uninformed clueless ignorant...let it just be said...retards are allowed to make a decision that so directly affects my life and this country that I love. So why are people so endlessly fascinated by utterly meaningless trivia and so indifferent to reality and simple facts? Maybe that's the plan?

The Media-Government Complex that successfully kept us fat, stupid, and complacent for the last half of a century has since 2008 completely overplayed its hand. People across this country are starting to wake up. They're looking at what schools are teaching their children. They're looking at the crushing mountain of debt we're faced with. They're looking at the appalling and deteriorating situation in the Mid East, and the looming ever-more serious threat we face on two fronts from both Russia and China.

America this is your wakeup call! We get this one last chance to set things right. Or we could just turn on a football game suck down a six-pack and then go back to sleep. What do you think?

Monday, October 8, 2012

The phrase jump the shark comes from a scene in the fifth season premiere episode of the American TV series Happy Days titled "Hollywood: Part 3", written by Fred Fox, Jr. and aired on September 20, 1977. In the episode, the central characters visit Los Angeles, where a water-skiing Fonzie (Henry Winkler), answers a challenge to his bravery by wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket, and jumping over a confined shark.

"Jumping the shark" since then, has broadly come to mean that moment when everyone knows it's over. Hollywood is particularly susceptible to experiencing these moments, perhaps because entire lives and careers are devoted entirely to fantasy. It's my opinion that because they devote so much wealth, time, and energy into portraying a gigantic fairytale, at some point perhaps they just lose sight of reality. The shark jumping moment is always tellingly significant. It's characterized by its beyond the pale ludicrous shabbiness. When a larger than life Fonz uses his mystical powers to turn on jukeboxes or convince stubborn coke machines to release the soda we grin and go along, but when a superhuman Fonzie is suddenly able to fly over sharks well...

The show, enterprise, or career may lurch along for another short span of time after this happens but now it's just going through the motions.

The Government-Media complex has had its jumping the shark moment. When it seems too good to be true, it usually is. When it's flat out not even remotely possible, I think you just have to stop and decide that it's no longer even worth listening to them anymore. They've now become ludicrous and pathetic.

When the September jobs report was released, conservatives were highly suspicious. Immediately an all-out media assault began on anyone questioning the numbers. The phrase "highly insulted" set the tone when these incredibly convenient numbers were questioned. You'll be hard pressed to find very many articles which do question those numbers. Forbes published a highly critical and well reasoned article, and then promptly flushed it down the memory hole. I found a cached copy. I don't know how long this cached copy will be available so you'd better check it out pretty quick.

At promptly 8:30 am EST the Household survey announced unemployment had miraculously dropped to 7.8% which implied that nonfarm employment had increased a mind boggling 873,000 from August to September. Divergences are quite common between the Establishment and Household numbers….but a discrepancy of this magnitude aroused my suspicions. Navigating the BLS website is a frustration in and of itself. For my labors I discovered that since March 2002 or 115 data points, not once was there a month when the Household Survey had increased by such a gigantic amount or was there once when there was a divergence of that magnitude between the two indicators.

The Household survey, being made from such a pin sized sample size has always had a more volatile streak than the more reliable Establishment measure. But out of the blue to arrive at such a crazy number two days after a lackluster debate performance by the President has a malodor about it. Coincidence….I think not. Taken in conjunction with the goulash of other economic indicators over the past sixty days, an 873,000 jump in payrolls seems impossible to me. Second quarter GDP was recently revised downward to a paltry 1.3% growth rate and weekly unemployment claims are a desultory 370,000, far higher than if our economy was experiencing a sudden growth spurt. All important durable goods orders plunged 13% from July to August indicating business don’t have the confidence to make capital investment with so much looming uncertainty, be it the fiscal cliff, uncertain regulatory environment, uneasiness over tax policy, or employee health care expense under Obama care.

My mood is quite somber today. I'm saddened that the nation has sunk this low. I was not one of those who quickly published an unreasoned denial of the BLS numbers. I thought about this all weekend. I hunted for the truth. Is it possible that unemployment dropped so incredibly at the very moment when Obama so desperately needed it? There isn't a snowballs chance in Hell! I'm saddened today by this dishonesty. These lies are so over-the-top so impossible to believe that it's mind boggling, and yet the Government-Media complex is going to look us in the eye and call us crazy for not believing them!

We are now more than 16 trillion in debt, which means our debt is now higher than America's yearly income. (GNP) This puts us in the same boat as all the other failing countries of the Euro. For the past several years under President Obama we've begun just printing money.

In late November 2008, the Fed started buying $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (MBS).[44] By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, MBS, and Treasury notes, and reached a peak of $2.1 trillion in June 2010. Further purchases were halted as the economy had started to improve, but resumed in August 2010 when the Fed decided the economy was not growing robustly. After the halt in June holdings started falling naturally as debt matured and were projected to fall to $1.7 trillion by 2012. The Fed's revised goal became to keep holdings at the $2.054 trillion level. To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in 2–10-year Treasury notes a month. In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, or "QE2", buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.[45][46] A third round of quantitative easing, or "QE3," was announced by the Federal Reserve in September 2012. The third round includes a plan to purchase US$40 billion of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) per month.

This "Quantitative Easing" unless stopped very soon, will end up putting us in the same grave as all the other failed regimes in history that were destroyed by hyperinflation, the latest being Yugoslavia and now Zimbabwe.

The almost certain fact that these numbers are terribly flawed is not the whole story. The very real possibility that they're deliberately flawed does not complete this story. The final jumping the shark moment came with the virtual avalanche of media support of these numbers and hysterical all-out attack on any critics, who they condescendingly labeled conspiracy theorists. Thousands of identical stories from the smallest paper to the biggest network immediately jumped on anyone who dared question these figures. Birthers and Truthers and Deniers, oh my! The Media doth protest too much, methinks!

Are we supposed to just grin and go along with this? If there's one overarching reason above all others which proves Obama must not win in November it is this one. This shabby ludicrous pathetic last-ditch attempt to pull the wool over our eyes one more time is the final straw. They took over control of our schools. They took over control of our media. They took over control of our bureaus and government offices. Now they're attempting to take over control of that last source of unregulated information, the internet. Here's the thing, they just jumped the shark. People all over this country are talking to each other, and in disbelief! They're suddenly awake and talking and unless they've been living in 47% fantasy land their entire lives, they're saying this show is over.